In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1913)

Page scan 000415 from In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 1
Leaf #:
000415
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 12, 2024
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

William Pelzer, Direct Examination. 393 is no agreement between the General Film Company and the Kinetograph Company. Q. Well, between the Patents Company and the Kinetograph Company? A. Xo agreement between the Kinetograph Company and the Patents Company. If there are such, though, I will produce them. I omitted speaking about the Eastman agreements. Q. I have some of the Eastman agreements. A. The agreements between the Motion Picture Patents Company and the Eastman Company were also delivered to Mr. Grosvenor by me a year ago. There were four Eastman agreements, as I remember. Q. Now, I show you an agreement dated January 1, 1909, between the Patents Company and the Eastman Company, and another agreement between the same parties dated June 15, 1909, and another agreement between the same parties of February 14, 1911, and another agreement between the Patents Company and the Edison Company, Edison Manufacturing Company, and Eastman Company, of February 14, 1911. Are there any other agreements between the Eastman Company and the Patents Company? A. I do not know of any, but I will have a search made, and make inquiry. Q. Of course you will not make search for any of those that I have named. I will retain these agreements that I have shown you and determine later whether to introduce them. A. I have a list of those you have. Q. Mr. Pelzer, the Patents Company, maintains a large force of detectives, or men, whose duty it is to see whether the licensed exhibitors are observing the terms of the licenses, and to find out whether they are displaying unlicensed film, or independent film, so-called, or doing anything else that the licensed agreements provide against, is that correct? A. If there are any such I never heard of them. Q. Who has charge of that branch of the Patents Company? A. I don't know of any such branch in the Patents Company. Q. Of the Patents Company? A. I don't know of any. Q. Well, don't you have employees whose duty it is to go to the different theatres and ascertain whether any unlicensed film is being displayed? A. I don't know of any employees in our service whose duty it is to do that. Q. Well, you received information from time to time as